Talk:Angle of Attack
John Bennewitz's Comments: Overall, the explanation of angle of attack was pretty good. However, there are a couple of points you may want to consider to update this entry. 1) Spelling/Grammatical errors - When reading this entry, there were numerous spelling errors (and a couple grammatical errors) throughout the article. You may want to go through and make sure there aren't any left. 2) Where are all of your citation? Yes, you did provide adequate references, but not no sentence or images directly cited one of your references. Make sure to go back and include both proper citations for the sentences and your images. 3) Try to rename the "What AOA is not" section heading (this is a bit awkward). Maybe change it to something along the lines of "The Differences Between AOA & Other Characteristic Aviation Angles" 4) I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in the following sentence in the "Induced and Effective AOA for a Wing" Section: "The flow produced and hence the air force, no longer are in keeping with the angle of attack between the wing and the path of flight but with the angle given by the motion of the wing relative to the surrounding portion of the air." Try and re-phrase this to add a bit of clarity to your thought. 5) You should probably re-format you picture scheme. It is a bit sporadic (in terms of image size and location). Definitely increase the size of the Cl vs AOA Plot to allow people to easily read the axes of the plot. 6) You didn't link to your profile wiki page. 7) Finally, the "Importance of AOA" Section Heading is vague. The importance of AOA is a pretty broad subject, and you mainly focus on how AOA affects pilots in flight in this section. Review by Michael Jones # Need a link to your wiki profile. # Links to your references need to be placed throughout the wiki where the information came from, not just listed at the bottom. Like John said, the images also need sufficient documentation on their origin in the caption. # In the intro, try using "performance characteristics" as opposed to numbers. It sounds more academic. # In the Definition section, it might help to denote on the image what the absolute angle of attack is. The image shows an \alpha and an \alpha_0 but the write-up talks in \alpha , \alpha_{L=0} , and \alpha_a . I think there ought to be a little more consistency for clarification. # The confusion John talks about in the next section could be helped with a parenthetical statement and some sentence rearrangement. I tried to correct the grammar, but it's still a bit convoluted Perhaps a diagram could help show the difference. # It might help to discuss the importance of these differences as well. It wasn't very clear. # It may help to include design considerations as part of the importance of AoA. How exactly are those performance numbers related to angle of attack? Michael.jones 20:19, September 30, 2009 (UTC) *Use inline citations throughout your article *Include categories to help catalog your article in the wiki as a whole *You really need a picture for the induced angle of attack section *It's worthwhile also mentioning the flight path angle while you're talking about AoA and pitch angle *How does AoA come into play during the design phase? (This section should be longer and more structured since it's petty important) --Wengler 01:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Review by Felipe Ortega (peer) I think your wiki page is very well done. The revisions from the previous assignment seem corrected and I found the article very clear and informative. The only minor criticism I will offer is to better introduce the descriptive images within the body of the text. Felipe Ortega